RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-01.txt

> From: w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-dist-auth-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Brian Korver
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 12:17 AM
> To: Julian Reschke
> Cc: WebDAV
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-webdav-quota-01.txt
>
> ...
>
> > 1) Properly define the technical term "quota space", and use it when
> > describing the live properties. The definition should be similar to
> > what
> > RFC3010 uses,
>
> I couldn't find the term "quota space" in 3010 at all.  What definition
> in 3010 are you thinking of?

Right, RFC3010 doesn't define the term, but it uses the concept. I just
think that it makes sense to give the concept a name:

         The value in bytes which represent the amount of disc space
         used by this file or directory and possibly a number of other
         similar files or directories, where the set of "similar" meets
         at least the criterion that allocating space to any file or
         directory in the set will reduce the "quota_avail_hard" of
         every other file or directory in the set.

         Note that there may be a number of distinct but overlapping
         sets of files or directories for which a quota_used value is
         maintained. E.g. "all files with a given owner", "all files
         with a given group owner". etc.

         The server is at liberty to choose any of those sets but should
         do so in a repeatable way.  The rule may be configured per-
         filesystem or may be "choose the set with the smallest quota".

So basically, a "quota space" is the set of resources that share the same
quota.

> > and I think the text from the description for
> > DAV:quota-used-bytes can be used as a basis:
> >
> > "   The DAV:quota-used-bytes value is the value in octets representing
> >    the amount of space used by this file or directory and possibly a
> >    number of other similar files or directories, where the set of
> >    osimilaro meets at least the criterion that allocating space to any
> >    file or directory in the set will count against the quota-limit.  It
> >    MUST include the total count including usage derived from sub-
> >    resources if appropriate.  It SHOULD include metadata storage size
> >    if metadata storage is counted against the quota-limit.   "
> >
> >
> > 2) Then simply define (for *any* resource):
> >
> > DAV:quota-limit-bytes: number of octets that has been assigned to the
> > currently authenticated user in the quota-space in which the resource
> > identified by the request URL resides.
> >
> > DAV:quota-used-bytes: number of octets that have been allocated
> > towards the
> > limit above (again in the quota-space in which the resource identified
> > by
> > the request URL resides).
>
> Personally, I think I'd rather we stick with the definitions
> pulled from RFC3010.  They seem pretty clear to me.

For the record, i'm absolutely in favor to stick with the definitions from
RFC3010. Why don't we just steal them verbatim, or just refer to 3010?

IMHO,

         The value in bytes which represents the amount of additional
         disk space that can be allocated to this file or directory
         before the user may reasonably be warned.  It is understood
         that this space may be consumed by allocations to other files
         or directories though there is a rule as to which other files
         or directories.

is very clear (we may have to map some terms though). If we stick with this
language it's also much clearer why the distinction between plain resources
and collections (and other types) really doesn't make sense at all -- I'd
prfer the spec not to say anything about that.

> > (keeping the language that gives servers a lot of freedom how to count)
> >
> > This should give clients all the information they need to display the
> > "percentage used" thingy.
> >
> >
> > 3) The new draft introduces a new optional property
> > DAV:quota-assigned-bytes
> > that seems to be used to support implementations where quota spaces
> > can be
> > nested, so for example /A/B resides in a different quota space than
> > /A. I'd
> > really like to understand whether this really requires a new property,
> > or
> > whether the simple model above would suffice for this as well.
>
> Hmm, that was only intended as an example (and is identified as such),
> not
> as an implementation requirement.  I'll add another example so that this
> isn't confusing.
>
> DAV:quota-assigned-bytes is merely to support implementations that allow
> quota to be PROPPATCHed.  I'll try to make that clearer as well.

That didn't come through. Now it reads:

   The value of this property will usually be protected, although a
   user with sufficient privileges may be permitted to change the
   value.  The property is useful even if it is protected.  A 403
   Forbidden response is RECOMMENDED for attempts to write a protected
   property.

That sounds as if *usually* the property is read-only.

BTW: why do we need an additional property for that?

Julian
--
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

Received on Thursday, 20 March 2003 03:38:38 UTC